StevenG

What about the numerous times when your 2-level contract plays worse than 1N, even if only by 10 points? That's a disaster at pairs if you're the only pair in the room in it.

If declarer has eight hearts - very likely for his bid - he'll make almost certainly make 7 tricks in trumps alone. If he doesn't have AK of trumps, he'll likely have another trick somewhere to justify his bid. Doubling is a straight bet that 6♣ fails. What odds you need depends on what proportion of the room is in 6♣, and you can't tell that without knowing how people are likely to bid at this particular club.

If I'm not prepared to double the second one, I'm wondering why partnrt bid 4♥ in the first place.

How can you impose 3♦ on EW when that contract is purely the result of an infraction?

I think a reference to the nauseating "Deck of Cards" http://www.metrolyrics.com/deck-of-cards-lyrics-wink-martindale.html

So, that's not the way they want the game to be played and they go elsewhere. And when your club is down to a couple of tables, what then? Most people at a club aren't playing a mind sport, just an organized parlour game with a competitive element. Giving them that, and keeping it social, is not, perhaps, what serious players want, but the only way to keep many, probably nearly all, clubs viable.

The more I read this thread, the more I think that 2NT might be better at IMPs, and 1♣ at MPs.

I thought Campboy dismissed this approach (or, at least, this metric) in post 46.

Is pass a LA if partner never opens 1NT on a 5-card major?

There seem to be significant differences between the attitude of English club players to opening weak twos and that of Americans. Ours are much less likely to be sound. I suspect that means that pass is a more attractive proposition for us. Perhaps 2NT is also more attractive. If contemplating a pass, and worrying about missing something, it's probably best to take into account partner's aggressiveness when in protective seat.

Eagles doesn't put it in his posts any more (because he posts so regularly), but he plays in an Acol environment. Over here you need 23 points for a balanced hand for 2♣ followed by 2NT, or 2♦ etc. if playing Benji.

If we take the poll as gospel ( :rolleyes: ) then we start with the probability of a spade as 50% and a top heart as 25%. After the UI, the probability of a heart is, presumably, 0%. But what if the probability of a spade is, say, 20%? The probability of a spade has still dropped by more than that of a heart. What is our methodology on this? The difficulty is that a heart, while not a LA for me, is a LA according to Law 16B. But the perception of its importance seems to be skewed by whether you consider it a serious LA, or something that rather scrapes into the list. With multiple LAs, if a minor LA (call it X) becomes less attractive after UI, do you automatically adjust for a non-X choice? Or is it only if it's a LA you perceive (rightly or wrongly) as one of the most likely?

But it changes the probability of my leading a heart from 0% to 0%. If I use the UI, it changes the probability of my leading a spade from 100% (I think) to 0%. How does that constitute suggesting a spade over a heart?

But I'm going to lead a spade without the UI. If I want to use the UI, I'm going to switch to a club, because that's the best chance of finding partner's long suit. Since I've got four spades, it seems very unlikely that partner's suit will be spades. (Given the auction and my hand, what is the (Bayesian) probability that partner's suit is spades?) If we assume that double wouldn't have asked for a spade, then not only does it demonstrably suggest a non-heart lead, it also demonstrably suggests a non-spade lead. Of course, if double does ask for a spade, then the meaning of the UI is completely different.

Hi Fluffy. There's a problem in the link to the first problem. The URL links to probid=115 instead of 114 (and the [/url] is positioned one character out).

I agree completely. I have, out of curiosity, identified many of the so-called offenders in EBU events just from the hand (as given in the post) and the EBU results pages. (Mostly I want to find out how strong and/or experienced they are). Most, but not all, of those I looked for from the recent Brighton series were easy to find. You can't stop it, other than by distorting the original hand - why try?

I don't recall ever seeing a properly announced strong two since announcements were introduced. (I do see Benji-style 2♣ or 2♦ misannounced as strong relatively frequently. :( )

Are people taught bridge any more?

I have sympathy for East. It used to be the case that weak twos were alertable and strong twos not. It seems to me quite easy to misremember the current arrangement (since one so rarely meets a strong two) and think "no announcement, must be strong". It was, after all, South wh committed the first infraction by not announcing.

No, you're still dead. The fact that there's a clone out there doesn't help you. [Edit] To clarify: the illusion of continuity of consciousness will exist for the clone (and every one else). There's no reason why it should for you.

Well, I've tried modifying my style on this type of weak 2, because of what experts say in this forum. The result?? A lot of 0% boards. No thank you.

2♥ for me too. Whatever others here think, you'll be very much with the field in an English club, and that's normally a safe place to be.

2♦

I've been waiting for better players than I to comment on this, but there isn't much interest. My instinct is just to blast 4♥ on the hand. I'm assuming partner has useful extras for his bid, otherise what's the point of it? So partner either has more than four hearts or useful diamond support. Where are the spades? I've got none, and they are East's second suit. Partner isn't marked with too many either, so West must have a lot to go with his presumed bust. If I'm not active here, West isn't going to have to guess how high to bid. It's not going to be easy for partner whatever I do, so I'd rather describe my hand as quickly as possible to give him the best chance. Is my logic completely crazy? I don't care for the 2♠ bid actually made. Maybe it's OK if you have really clear understandings of what it should mean, but it would be too ambiguous for me. Partner needs help here, anything that's ambivalent about direction isn't my choice.

I can't see that this is stated anywhere in the (brand-new) Blue Book. Are players expected to be psychic?